I am on my side. I am on my kin’s side I am on my extended kin’s side I am on my civilization’s side. Truth happens to be the weapon of choice in this battle, because it lets us build commons and compete via commons against those that cannot compete via commons. And because it is by cunning deceits sold to women and the underclass that we have been defeated in the ancient and modern worlds. I considered myself a classical liberal. I had the constitution and declaration and a map of the world on my bedroom walls, and a set of encyclopedias under that map. I stared at them a lot. Not romantically, and not ideologically, but in the context of what I learned from those and other encyclopedias. I considered my self a libertarian (a hayekian classical liberal) when I believed in the potential of mankind.. And current events have made me understand that such a fantasy was the product of european eugenics, and that the rest of humanity except for perhaps the Japanese and koreans is are still but animals, and we we must protect ourselves and our generations from them. I love sovereignty and will pay for it with my life. I love liberty for those who can pay for it. I love freedom for those who can wield it. For the rest, the best we can do is prevent them from harming us, our people, our civilization, and this planet.
Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology
-
Our Era in the Context of the Enlightenments: the Restoration of Europa From Semitic and Iranian Influence (deceits).
The enlightenment succeeded in the physical sciences, but not in the social sciences, and we can see the german, french, russian, jewish, chinese reactions as social counter-enlightenments. What seems to have been under development in the 1800’s in Germany was the second scientific enlightenment (which benefitted the USA mostly), and the second attempt at social scientific revolution. Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Weber/Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, Popper(science), Hayek (law) all came very close, and Weber, Mises, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman actually independently came to about the same conclusion, but they could not succeed against the pseudoscientific marxists and keynesians, just as the enlightenment philosophers could not succeed against the church and state. We can succeed. Because we have cognitive science, the record of the failure of keynesian economics, the record of the failure of communism, socialism, social democracy and the record of failure of rousseauian and lockeian man. The world merely needs the answer that the first scientific enlightenment, the second failed enlightenment (german) and the american post-german attempt failed to produce. Social science = natural law = reciprocity and the unit of measure = property.
-
Our Era in the Context of the Enlightenments: the Restoration of Europa From Semitic and Iranian Influence (deceits).
The enlightenment succeeded in the physical sciences, but not in the social sciences, and we can see the german, french, russian, jewish, chinese reactions as social counter-enlightenments. What seems to have been under development in the 1800’s in Germany was the second scientific enlightenment (which benefitted the USA mostly), and the second attempt at social scientific revolution. Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Weber/Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, Popper(science), Hayek (law) all came very close, and Weber, Mises, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman actually independently came to about the same conclusion, but they could not succeed against the pseudoscientific marxists and keynesians, just as the enlightenment philosophers could not succeed against the church and state. We can succeed. Because we have cognitive science, the record of the failure of keynesian economics, the record of the failure of communism, socialism, social democracy and the record of failure of rousseauian and lockeian man. The world merely needs the answer that the first scientific enlightenment, the second failed enlightenment (german) and the american post-german attempt failed to produce. Social science = natural law = reciprocity and the unit of measure = property.
-
The Purpose of My Work
THE PURPOSE OF THE WORK
“The purpose of my work, taking it to its conclusion, is to produce the as yet unwritten ‘Bible’ of Western Civilization – beyond which no man or government may tread: The Cult of Non-Submission; The Philosophy of Aristocracy: -Sovereignty; And its ‘Scripture’: Natural Law.”
(Because this sentence seems to strike a chord)
-
The Purpose of My Work
THE PURPOSE OF THE WORK
“The purpose of my work, taking it to its conclusion, is to produce the as yet unwritten ‘Bible’ of Western Civilization – beyond which no man or government may tread: The Cult of Non-Submission; The Philosophy of Aristocracy: -Sovereignty; And its ‘Scripture’: Natural Law.”
(Because this sentence seems to strike a chord)
-
The Origins of Civilization: Militia, Property, Marriage
by John Dow Civilization emerges from 3 fundamental institutions: 1) Militia (how to compete in the violence market), 2) Property (how to compete in the production market) and 3) Marriage (how to compete in the reproduction market). The polity fails or succeeds in competition by the functionality of three institutions. Through success in the violence market, the polity may establish and regulate it’s production and reproduction markets (via property and marriage). The polity regulates these institutions by LAW. Women were given the power to influence law, they weren’t also given the responsibility to defend societies institutions in the violence market, without this responsibility they lack signals of threats in the violence market required to inform their decisions. As their interests extended most significantly into the production and reproduction markets, they have voted to progressively destroy the institutions of property and marriage to transfer improved competitiveness to themselves (a logical exercise of self-interest, considering the signaling they’re exposed to). Without allegiance to the polity established through ‘skin’ in the violence market, allegiance to property and marriage (as institutions of group competitive advantage) naturally lacks also. We have three options:
- Determine a method of signaling to Women which brings them into allegiance with the group in the violence market (stable husbands and children seem to do this to conservative women).
Remove enfranchisement from female classes due to the inherent risks to the group in the violence market their collective actions cause.
Or, potentially a third option.. Find a method of limiting female franchise to women who have a form of “skin” in the violence market (wives/mothers/daughters of men with “skin in the game”)
-
The Origins of Civilization: Militia, Property, Marriage
by John Dow Civilization emerges from 3 fundamental institutions: 1) Militia (how to compete in the violence market), 2) Property (how to compete in the production market) and 3) Marriage (how to compete in the reproduction market). The polity fails or succeeds in competition by the functionality of three institutions. Through success in the violence market, the polity may establish and regulate it’s production and reproduction markets (via property and marriage). The polity regulates these institutions by LAW. Women were given the power to influence law, they weren’t also given the responsibility to defend societies institutions in the violence market, without this responsibility they lack signals of threats in the violence market required to inform their decisions. As their interests extended most significantly into the production and reproduction markets, they have voted to progressively destroy the institutions of property and marriage to transfer improved competitiveness to themselves (a logical exercise of self-interest, considering the signaling they’re exposed to). Without allegiance to the polity established through ‘skin’ in the violence market, allegiance to property and marriage (as institutions of group competitive advantage) naturally lacks also. We have three options:
- Determine a method of signaling to Women which brings them into allegiance with the group in the violence market (stable husbands and children seem to do this to conservative women).
Remove enfranchisement from female classes due to the inherent risks to the group in the violence market their collective actions cause.
Or, potentially a third option.. Find a method of limiting female franchise to women who have a form of “skin” in the violence market (wives/mothers/daughters of men with “skin in the game”)
-
Regarding Nietzsche’s Positive Statements About Persians
um. well, I think we have to keep in mind, that Nietzsche is a literary and aesthetic philosopher, not a mathematical, legal, or political one. He is trying to restore our civilization’s aesthetic from its debasement by christianity. But he holds no appreciation for (or from what I gather, understanding of) math, law, economics, and politics – all of which are forms of measurement. And so, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And he seems to think that it’s the literature that causes the culture, rather than the group evolutionary strategy, and the institutions the group puts in place, and that literature JUSTIFIES that strategy and institution – it does not CREATE it unless we forcibly indoctrinate people into it. The Persians were WEALTHIER than the greeks. Of course there will be aspects of the wealthier people to admire. But the evidence is that the greeks were militarily, economically, and institutionally, and culturally,and intellectual superior to the Persians. The question we have to ask is why were the greeks superior to the Persians, and the romans superior to the greeks and to the carthaginians? If one views the supernatural writings of the Persians and semites, the platonic writings of the greeks, and the legal, political, and stoic writings of the romans, we obtain a clue. If we view the economy of the Persians, the greeks, and the romans we obtain another clue. If we view the political order of the Persians, the greeks, the carthaginians, and the romans, we get another clue. Now, christianity was successful in most part because (a) the plagues, (b) the slave economy, (c) the barbarian invasions, (d) the comparative wealth of the fertile crescent vs the european territories, (e) the dependence of rome upon maintaining control of trade routes and food supplies in remote areas (f) the conquest of decimated western rome by the greek romans (byzantines), (g) and the conquest of the byzantines by the muslims just as the barbarians had defeated rome. Lying is cheap and christianity is lying. The only way that small poorer numbers in the west can compete is the way Aryans always competed: using advanced technology, professional warriors, and agility ( ooda-loops) to out-maneuver (decide FASTER) to defeat enemies dependent upon slave soldiers, large numbers, and central rule. The only people to develop truth, reason, and pre-science were the greeks. And the only people to develop natural law were the romans. The only people to create the scientific revolution were the europeans. And the only thing that seems to have been an impediment is the lies created by zoroaster, spread by the persians to the semites then to the europeans. So unlike Nietzche, I see the greeks as rebels against persian mysticism, I see the romans rebels against greek platonism, and I see the church as existing only because it was a government imposed by conquest on a people exhausted from immigration of barbarians, invasion by barbarians, and decimated by plague. THere are indeed people who are moved by the occult, by the divine/supernatural, by myth, by literature, by history. But they can choose what they are moved by. Law is not a choice, it is required, and it doesn’t require belief in anything. Economics do not require belief, or agreement. They merely exist by force of law. And law by force of violence. Nietzche, good christian, and good german, as he was – informed by literature, trying to escape its prison, saw only literature as cause – not as justification for incentives. Not as justification of priors. Not as the heroism of institutions whose origins and strategy are long forgotten.
-
Regarding Nietzsche’s Positive Statements About Persians
um. well, I think we have to keep in mind, that Nietzsche is a literary and aesthetic philosopher, not a mathematical, legal, or political one. He is trying to restore our civilization’s aesthetic from its debasement by christianity. But he holds no appreciation for (or from what I gather, understanding of) math, law, economics, and politics – all of which are forms of measurement. And so, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And he seems to think that it’s the literature that causes the culture, rather than the group evolutionary strategy, and the institutions the group puts in place, and that literature JUSTIFIES that strategy and institution – it does not CREATE it unless we forcibly indoctrinate people into it. The Persians were WEALTHIER than the greeks. Of course there will be aspects of the wealthier people to admire. But the evidence is that the greeks were militarily, economically, and institutionally, and culturally,and intellectual superior to the Persians. The question we have to ask is why were the greeks superior to the Persians, and the romans superior to the greeks and to the carthaginians? If one views the supernatural writings of the Persians and semites, the platonic writings of the greeks, and the legal, political, and stoic writings of the romans, we obtain a clue. If we view the economy of the Persians, the greeks, and the romans we obtain another clue. If we view the political order of the Persians, the greeks, the carthaginians, and the romans, we get another clue. Now, christianity was successful in most part because (a) the plagues, (b) the slave economy, (c) the barbarian invasions, (d) the comparative wealth of the fertile crescent vs the european territories, (e) the dependence of rome upon maintaining control of trade routes and food supplies in remote areas (f) the conquest of decimated western rome by the greek romans (byzantines), (g) and the conquest of the byzantines by the muslims just as the barbarians had defeated rome. Lying is cheap and christianity is lying. The only way that small poorer numbers in the west can compete is the way Aryans always competed: using advanced technology, professional warriors, and agility ( ooda-loops) to out-maneuver (decide FASTER) to defeat enemies dependent upon slave soldiers, large numbers, and central rule. The only people to develop truth, reason, and pre-science were the greeks. And the only people to develop natural law were the romans. The only people to create the scientific revolution were the europeans. And the only thing that seems to have been an impediment is the lies created by zoroaster, spread by the persians to the semites then to the europeans. So unlike Nietzche, I see the greeks as rebels against persian mysticism, I see the romans rebels against greek platonism, and I see the church as existing only because it was a government imposed by conquest on a people exhausted from immigration of barbarians, invasion by barbarians, and decimated by plague. THere are indeed people who are moved by the occult, by the divine/supernatural, by myth, by literature, by history. But they can choose what they are moved by. Law is not a choice, it is required, and it doesn’t require belief in anything. Economics do not require belief, or agreement. They merely exist by force of law. And law by force of violence. Nietzche, good christian, and good german, as he was – informed by literature, trying to escape its prison, saw only literature as cause – not as justification for incentives. Not as justification of priors. Not as the heroism of institutions whose origins and strategy are long forgotten.
-
Civilizations Developed Technologies for Clear Reasons.
MESOPOTAMIA Which class rule evolved first mesopotamia: Warriors or Priests? (we know the answer) Which class emerged in control of rule? Did that class adopt the role of the other (conflate)? Did that ruling class conflate roles of religion and law? Now, the little rhetorical problem here is that I made the original statements about the tendencies of CIVILIZATIONS to make use of different TECHNOLOGIES of organization, and the unintended consequences of those rules. I make this argument in order to expand upon the differnces between western, fertile crescent, hrappan/indian, and chinese civilizations, and how our earliest assumptions about the world, man, the good, and the true, originated in the ancient past and still govern us today – with unintended consequences. And I make this argument so that westerners understand why, as poor people, small in number, lacking concentrate capital of the river valleys, developed FASTER (not first, just faster) than other civilizations in the pre-historic, ancient, and modern eras. Why is that? Well, I think I know, and I think it’s something we CAN know. Here is another example. If we read the inscriptions from the Palace Stele from Ur, the Cuneiform of Cyrus and Darius and his Son Darius (starting with the 27th or Persian Dynasty), with the inscriptions of similar periods of the Egyptians (just prior to persian conquest), with the writings of Homer and shortly after of the ‘Athenians’, or any of the greeks, with the writing of the romans, of the german law and myth, of the english law and myth, then what is the difference in the method of narration, explanation and argument? All civilizations produce some level of occult(experiential), religion, myth, literature, history, law, mathematics, and ‘science'(existential). But we can actually MEASURE that distribution. And we can easily determine the level of conflation or deflation (from occult down to science) that governance relies upon, and we can measure changes in the economies that result from those (a) distributions of use and (b) use in government. So we can MEASURE the consequences of say, how chinese rule changed when the migrated from empirical to moral rule. We can measure the consequences of the use of islam by the aristocracy and it’s use as a method of general rule. (btw: the fellow in the original thread does not know just how much knowledge I have of the ancient middle east, but I’m pretty sure it’s comparatively non trivial. and it would turn into a pissing match if I took that avenue with him. ) THE WAY WE SPEAK, THE METHODS OF NARRATION, EXPLANATION, ARGUMENT, AND DECIDABILITY profoundly influence us. And if we conduct rule by those different methods they profoundly affect us more. The problem is the means of rule by scientific law is expensive and requires a high trust low context society, and the means of mythological rule is inexpensive but only requires indoctrination in a high context but produces a low trust society. These are profound questions that explain our evolutionary differences. Curt